Periodic Reporting for period 1 - NanoBubbles (Nano bubbles: how, when and why does science fail to correct itself?)
Reporting period: 2021-06-01 to 2022-11-30
Science relies on the correction of errors to advance, yet in practice scientists find it difficult to erase erroneous and exaggerated claims from the scientific record. Recent discussion of a “replication crisis” has impaired trust in science both among scientists and non-scientists; yet we know little about how non-replicated or even fraudulent claims can be removed from the scientific record. This project combines approaches from the natural, engineering, and social sciences and the humanities (Science and Technology Studies) to understand how error correction in science works and what obstacles it faces, and stages events for scientists to reflect on error and overpromising.
The project’s focus is nanobiology, a highly interdisciplinary field founded around the year 2000 that has already seen multiple episodes of overpromising and promotion of erroneous claims. We examine three such “bubbles”: the claim that nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier; that nanoparticles can penetrate the cell membrane; and the promotion of the “protein corona” concept to describe ordinary adsorption of proteins on nanoparticles. Findings based on error (non)correction in nanobiology should be generalizable to other new, highly interdisciplinary fields such as synthetic biology and artificial intelligence.
We trace claims and corrections in various channels of scientific communication (journals, social media, advertisements, conference programs, etc.) via innovative digital methods. We examine error (non)correction practices in scientific conferences via ethnographic participant-observation. We follow the history of conferences, journals, and other sites of error (non)correction from the 1970s (before nanobio per se existed) to the present. And we attempt to replicate nanobiological claims and, in case of non-replication, document obstacles to correcting those claims. Finally, we will spark a dialogue within the nanobiology community by organizing workshops and events at conferences for practitioners. Through the study and practice of nanobiology, we will analyse how, when and why science fails to correct itself, and explore ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of the scientific process.
The project’s focus is nanobiology, a highly interdisciplinary field founded around the year 2000 that has already seen multiple episodes of overpromising and promotion of erroneous claims. We examine three such “bubbles”: the claim that nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier; that nanoparticles can penetrate the cell membrane; and the promotion of the “protein corona” concept to describe ordinary adsorption of proteins on nanoparticles. Findings based on error (non)correction in nanobiology should be generalizable to other new, highly interdisciplinary fields such as synthetic biology and artificial intelligence.
We trace claims and corrections in various channels of scientific communication (journals, social media, advertisements, conference programs, etc.) via innovative digital methods. We examine error (non)correction practices in scientific conferences via ethnographic participant-observation. We follow the history of conferences, journals, and other sites of error (non)correction from the 1970s (before nanobio per se existed) to the present. And we attempt to replicate nanobiological claims and, in case of non-replication, document obstacles to correcting those claims. Finally, we will spark a dialogue within the nanobiology community by organizing workshops and events at conferences for practitioners. Through the study and practice of nanobiology, we will analyse how, when and why science fails to correct itself, and explore ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of the scientific process.
In the first 5 months of the project, we have focused on building the team common vocabulary, infrastructure (data sharing, data management plan) and ethical principles and dilemmas. We have also devoted time to advertising and recruitment with a number of researchers due to join us in the next few weeks.
We have not yet made progress beyond the state of the art as we are at the beginning of the project. Here is what we hope to achieve.
To better understand the complex ecosystem of science, NanoBubbles draws upon a wide cross-section of human knowledge to analyse how one part of the ecosystem, the field of nanobiology, works. This allows us to address our overarching research question: how, when and why does science fail to correct itself? NanoBubbles’ approach blending the human sciences, informatics and nanobiology is unique, although it builds on earlier collaborations. That blending gives the project the potential for a major long-term impact on the research system (across all disciplines), through its investigation of ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of the scientific process. But that blending also allows all the project’s participants to make transformative contributions to their own disciplines that would be impossible otherwise. Historians of science will gain new digital methods for collecting and analysing sources; conversely, computer scientists will gain new expertise in tracing not just the metadata and citations but the content of science across multiple channels of scientific communication. Computer scientists will also see the tools developed in this project integrated into the regular practice of critical nanobiologists, historians and sociologists – with potential for uptake in many other fields as well. Sociologists of science will gain true participant-observation experience of scientific experiments and conferences through collaboration with critical nanobiologists. Critical nanobiologists will gain an understanding of how their claims are entangled with the social organization and practices of their field. Thus, this wide-ranging interdisciplinary collaboration makes possible methodological innovation and substantive basic science discovery in each of NanoBubbles’ constituent disciplines as well as academically and societally relevant knowledge across our interdisciplinary cluster and potentially across all of science.
To better understand the complex ecosystem of science, NanoBubbles draws upon a wide cross-section of human knowledge to analyse how one part of the ecosystem, the field of nanobiology, works. This allows us to address our overarching research question: how, when and why does science fail to correct itself? NanoBubbles’ approach blending the human sciences, informatics and nanobiology is unique, although it builds on earlier collaborations. That blending gives the project the potential for a major long-term impact on the research system (across all disciplines), through its investigation of ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of the scientific process. But that blending also allows all the project’s participants to make transformative contributions to their own disciplines that would be impossible otherwise. Historians of science will gain new digital methods for collecting and analysing sources; conversely, computer scientists will gain new expertise in tracing not just the metadata and citations but the content of science across multiple channels of scientific communication. Computer scientists will also see the tools developed in this project integrated into the regular practice of critical nanobiologists, historians and sociologists – with potential for uptake in many other fields as well. Sociologists of science will gain true participant-observation experience of scientific experiments and conferences through collaboration with critical nanobiologists. Critical nanobiologists will gain an understanding of how their claims are entangled with the social organization and practices of their field. Thus, this wide-ranging interdisciplinary collaboration makes possible methodological innovation and substantive basic science discovery in each of NanoBubbles’ constituent disciplines as well as academically and societally relevant knowledge across our interdisciplinary cluster and potentially across all of science.